This is what 30 years of Reaganomics has gotten us

[Le Jacquelope]

I think we let the market reset...reduce the government and let the creative people soar. We can't keep the buggy whip people employed forever.

Wrong analogy. All the jobs that have gone overseas are still being done. Thanks to your Republican race-to-the-bottom economic strategy, though, Americans won't be allowed to work in those industries unless we accept living in polluted squalor like the Chinese and East Indians.

They can get jobs with the new company(s) that are formed when the government stops regulating us to death.

Regulating us to death? What are these regulations you are whining about? You mean the ones that keep our factories from collapsing and killing people, or the ones that make our air breathable?

You ought to try living in China or India for a while and see just how hard it is to live under de-regulation.

Often the quality of teaching has nothing to do with the amount of money we focus on the NEA (Teachers unions).

I said, we need more teachers.

The DC schools have some of the highest numbers of teachers, aids, administrators, and assorted other hangers-on and the lowest graduation rates and below average test scores. Lets improve quality and watch the spending at the same time.

Name me one high school that has gotten along well with class sizes of 30 and above.

The democrats are destroying the wealth-building ability of this nation and need to be thrown out of office on their asses in the next elections.

The Republicans will turn us into Somalia. The only wealth Republicans have ever created is for the top 1%. No one else benefits from your policies. Every time you guys roll into town we get economic ruin. Banking de-regulation and the Great Depression. The S&L Crisis, and now this mess, thanks to the string of jobless recoveries resulting from the gradual erosion of supply-side economics.

Dude. Europe has lower unemployment than we do, with their "socialist" policies. WTF.

 

[Midnight_Man]

Trickle down economics works just fine. Ask Wall Street. However, nothing ever seems to trickle down to the poor. Ask them!

 

[Ham Murabi]

I could have sworn it was 70 years of Rooseveltianomics that got us where we are today.

 

[Wok]

I could have sworn it was 70 years of Rooseveltianomics that got us where we are today.

Congress sure loves to spend the money, no doubt about that.

 

[RightField]

This is the same situation that's in our future if we keep expanding the welfare state. Even we don't have enough wealth creation to live up to the commitments of the welfare states combined with it's incentive to people to not work. We need to create an environment that is supportive of a vibrant and healthy growing economy that incentivizes people to work and be productive (and therefore earn the many benefits they desire). We can't just say that everyone is entitled to a house, a car, a big screen TV, free healthcare and a comfortable retirement without having someone working hard to create that wealth and that "someone" should be the person who hopes to enjoy those things. The government can legislate wealth all it wants, right up until its all gone.

February 22, 2010
Greece and the Welfare State in Ruins
By Robert Samuelson

WASHINGTON -- It would be possible in other circumstances to disregard the ongoing story of Greece and its debts as a tedious tale of financial markets. But there's much more to it than that. What's happening in Greece speaks to two larger issues affecting hundreds of millions of people everywhere: the future of the welfare state and the fate of Europe's single currency -- the euro. The meaning of Greece transcends high finance.

Every advanced society, including the United States, has a welfare state. Though details differ, their purposes are similar: to support the unemployed, poor, disabled and aged. All welfare states face similar problems: burgeoning costs as populations age; an overreliance on debt financing; and pressures to reduce borrowing that create pressures to cut welfare spending. High debt and the welfare state are at odds. It's an open question whether the collision will cause social and economic turmoil.

Greece is the opening act in this drama; already, its budget problems have spawned street protests. By the numbers, Greece's plight is acute. In 2009, its government debt -- basically, the sum of past annual deficits -- was 113 percent of its economy (gross domestic product, or GDP). The budget deficit for 2009 was 12.7 percent of GDP. Two-thirds of the debt is owed to foreigners, reports the Institute of International Finance.

The crisis originated in fears that Greece wouldn't be able to refinance almost 17 billion euros in bonds (about $23 billion) maturing this April and May, says the IIF's Jeffrey Anderson. If lenders balked, Greece would default on its bonds. A default would inflict losses on banks and other investors. By itself, this wouldn't be calamitous, because Greece is small (population: 11 million). But a Greek default could undermine market confidence in other euro countries' ability to service their debts. Serial defaults would threaten the global economic recovery. Most often mentioned are Spain, Portugal and Ireland.

Preventing that is what the 16 euro countries, led by France and Germany, are now debating. Greece's adoption of the euro contributed to the crisis. For years, it enabled Greece to borrow at low interest rates, because the prevailing assumption was that the euro bloc wouldn't allow one of its members to default. It would be rescued by the others. These expectations constituted an implicit guarantee of the debt of Greece and other euro countries. If Greece defaulted, the guarantee would vanish and, possibly, trigger a flight from other countries' debt.

But in practice, a bailout is proving hugely controversial. If Greece is aided, won't other countries demand -- or require -- rescues? Is this possible, considering that even France and Germany have high debts and that a Greek bailout is unpopular, especially in Germany? One way to mute the problems is for Greece to embrace a harsh austerity that reduces its borrowing. Greece has already pledged to cut its government work force and raise taxes on alcohol, tobacco and fuel. The other euro countries want more. Their dilemma is that either rescuing or abandoning Greece is a gamble.

To some economists, Greece's situation is so dire that default is inevitable, though it may be a few years away. The required austerity would be too punishing, says Desmond Lachman of the American Enterprise Institute. Greece would need spending cuts and tax increases equal to 10 percent of GDP, he says. The resulting savage recession would worsen existing unemployment, already about 10 percent. "No sane country is going to accept that," says Lachman. Greece may get a temporary rescue, he thinks, but will someday miss debt payments and revert to its own currency (the old currency: the "drachma").

Conceived as a way to unite Europe, the euro increasingly divides. No one wants Greece to default, but no one wants to pay the price of prevention. With its own currency, Lachman thinks, Greece will pursue depreciation to spur exports and economic revival. If other countries dump the euro, currency wars could ensue. The threat to the euro bloc ultimately stems from an overcommitted welfare state. Greece's situation is so difficult because a low birth rate and rapidly graying population automatically increase old-age assistance even as the government tries to cut its spending. At issue is the viability of its present welfare state.

Almost every advanced country -- the United States, Britain, Germany, Italy, France, Japan, Belgium and others -- faces some combination of huge budget deficits, high debts, aging populations and political paralysis. It's an unstable mix. Present deficits may aid economic recovery, but the persistence of those deficits threatens long-term prosperity. The same unpleasant choices now confronting Greece await most wealthy nations, even if they pretend otherwise.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

This is the same situation that's in our future if we keep expanding the welfare state. Even we don't have enough wealth creation to live up to the commitments of the welfare states combined with it's incentive to people to not work.

Dude, you are seriously ignorant. The problem in America is not that people don't want to work. It's that we keep sending their jobs overseas to low wage nations whose low wage advantage is completely and utterly impossible to beat without sinking to their level.

We need to create an environment that is supportive of a vibrant and healthy growing economy that incentivizes people to work and be productive (and therefore earn the many benefits they desire).

Then slap a God damned TARIFF on China and India and all the other low wage, high pollution countries, and bring the jobs back. You want to give people an incentive to work? Then bring back the jobs, that's all you need to do.

We can't just say that everyone is entitled to a house, a car, a big screen TV, free healthcare and a comfortable retirement without having someone working hard to create that wealth and that "someone" should be the person who hopes to enjoy those things. The government can legislate wealth all it wants, right up until its all gone.

You guys sent our jobs overseas and now you want to talk about creating wealth?

The WORKERS of our country create wealth, and you support the supply side economics policies that wiped them out.

 

[RightField]

Dude, you are seriously ignorant. The problem in America is not that people don't want to work. It's that we keep sending their jobs overseas to low wage nations whose low wage advantage is completely and utterly impossible to beat without sinking to their level.


Then slap a God damned TARIFF on China and India and all the other low wage, high pollution countries, and bring the jobs back. You want to give people an incentive to work? Then bring back the jobs, that's all you need to do.


You guys sent our jobs overseas and now you want to talk about creating wealth?

The WORKERS of our country create wealth, and you support the supply side economics policies that wiped them out.

I'm sure your arguments would carry more weight if you stomped your foot a couple times while saying it. We all watched the USSR fail miserably. We won't follow your path, we've seen it fail.

 

[RightField]

The economic system is rigged...

Is the vast right wing conspiracy haunting your dreams again? Maybe Nanny Hillary can tuck you into bed and make all your bad dreams go away.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

I'm sure your arguments would carry more weight if you stomped your foot a couple times while saying it. We all watched the USSR fail miserably. We won't follow your path, we've seen it fail.

That's the problem with you. You live in this delusional world where if you're not laissez-faire capitalism, you're the USSR. Look up false dilemma - if you can comprehend those words together without the help of a tutor and an etch-a-sketch.

BTW there is in fact a nice little capitalist paradise out there for you. It's called Somalia. Why don't you move there?

 

[Le Jacquelope]

Is the vast right wing conspiracy haunting your dreams again? Maybe Nanny Hillary can tuck you into bed and make all your bad dreams go away.

Your system is a failure. And it has until the year 2050 until it is brought down for good.

All we have to do is wait for whites to lose their majority status and when that's gone, so is your dog-eat-dog brand of Conservatism.

 

[RightField]

I didn't write this, it was written by a freshman in college. However, it is plain english that speaks to the benefits of market-based reform as compared to the "central-planning" approach you and the current inhabitors of the White House advocate:

• Central-planning = decline
• Market-based freedom = growth and prosperity

Simple, clean, clear.

This is as opposed to your squirrelly arguments about how it really wasn't all that good under Reagan and it was really great under Carter and the inflation under Carter was just an illusion created by the tri-lateral commission and the employment growth figures in Reagan's era were just falsified finger-painting by the youthful Dick Cheney.....give it a break. No one buys your ludicrous retro "communism is good, it's just misunderstood" storyline.

Reagan's economic policies emphasized the role of the free market. He passed legislation that embraced this principle; most notably, the Kemp-Roth tax cut, officially known as the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981. This reduced marginal income tax rates in the United States by 30 percent over a three-year span. It also spurred investment and spending when high taxes had discouraged such economic productivity in previous years.

Under the Reagan administration, inflation went from 13 percent in 1980 (the high inflation was inherited from Jimmy Carter) to around four percent. From 1983 to 1989, the gross domestic product increased by 3.2 percent each year and median household income increased by $4,000.

Employment also skyrocketed, with the U.S. economy producing 17 million new jobs from 1981 to 1989. The market as a whole rose upward and continued to do so for 18 consecutive years. National wealth also rose by $8 trillion. "Reaganomics," as his critics derisively called Reagan's policies, catapulted our economy into the greatest expansion of economy and wealth that the West had ever seen.

 

[RightField]

Your system is a failure. And it has until the year 2050 until it is brought down for good.

All we have to do is wait for whites to lose their majority status and when that's gone, so is your dog-eat-dog brand of Conservatism.

Why is it a failure? Because it is market-based, open and free and lets people engage in their creative pursuits? Because it's not consistent with the principles of "to each according to their need and from each according to their ability?"

This is getting tedious.

 

[unregistered]

 

[RightField]

I thought he predicted the death of conservatism last year.

Did ya like that quote?...I thought it was pretty good. It is a powerful and valid counter-argument to the central-planning that Obama offers as a path forward.

 

[The_Trouvere]

[Under Reagan]
"Employment also skyrocketed, with the U.S. economy producing 17 million new jobs from 1981 to 1989. The market as a whole rose upward and continued to do so for 18 consecutive years. National wealth also rose by $8 trillion. "Reaganomics," as his critics derisively called Reagan's policies, catapulted our economy into the greatest expansion of economy and wealth that the West had ever seen. "

When Jimmy Carter was president, an average of 2,600,000 jobs were created every year.
When Ronald Reagan was president, that declined to 2,000,000 jobs per year.
When Bill Clinton was president, that rose to 2,900,000 per year.

I've repeated this about ten times, but it does not get any less true.

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/

 

[Le Jacquelope]

I didn't write this, it was written by a freshman in college. However, it is plain english that speaks to the benefits of market-based reform as compared to the "central-planning" approach you and the current inhabitors of the White House advocate:

• Central-planning = decline
• Market-based freedom = growth and prosperity

Simple, clean, clear.

This is as opposed to your squirrelly arguments about how it really wasn't all that good under Reagan and it was really great under Carter and the inflation under Carter was just an illusion created by the tri-lateral commission and the employment growth figures in Reagan's era were just falsified finger-painting by the youthful Dick Cheney.....give it a break. No one buys your ludicrous retro "communism is good, it's just misunderstood" storyline.

That's because I never said Communism is good. I did say, however, that the social democracies of Europe are good, and you often refer to them as socialist. Their unemployment rate is lower than America's, though. Now how did that happen?

Oh, and if you really want minimal Government, then by all means move to Somalia.

Edited to add:
By the way, your link failed to address the fact that Reagan put America TRILLIONS OF ADDITIONAL DOLLARS in debt, and that Carter created more jobs per year than Reagan did. But this is the part that you will not respond to.

Why is it a failure? Because it is market-based, open and free and lets people engage in their creative pursuits? Because it's not consistent with the principles of "to each according to their need and from each according to their ability?"

This is getting tedious.

You're getting downright boring. It's a failure because it encourages greed, exploitation, and amoral behavior. That's called sociopathy, son. Sociopathy is the underpinning of free market capitalism.

(Now everyone watch RightField play his false dilemma card again. Heheh, and the boy doesn't even understand what "false dilemma" means, either.)

When Jimmy Carter was president, an average of 2,600,000 jobs were created every year.
When Ronald Reagan was president, that declined to 2,000,000 jobs per year.
When Bill Clinton was president, that rose to 2,900,000 per year.

I've repeated this about ten times, but it does not get any less true.

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/

Whoops. ReichField won't address that.


Sorry for running ReichField out of this thread, folks. I put up too many things here that he'll be too afraid to address.... sorrrrryyyyyyy!

 

[unregistered]

 

[RightField]

That's because I never said Communism is good. I did say, however, that the social democracies of Europe are good, and you often refer to them as socialist. Their unemployment rate is lower than America's, though. Now how did that happen?

Oh, and if you really want minimal Government, then by all means move to Somalia.

Edited to add:
By the way, your link failed to address the fact that Reagan put America TRILLIONS OF ADDITIONAL DOLLARS in debt, and that Carter created more jobs per year than Reagan did. But this is the part that you will not respond to.


You're getting downright boring. It's a failure because it encourages greed, exploitation, and amoral behavior. That's called sociopathy, son. Sociopathy is the underpinning of free market capitalism.

(Now everyone watch RightField play his false dilemma card again. Heheh, and the boy doesn't even understand what "false dilemma" means, either.)


Whoops. ReichField won't address that.


Sorry for running ReichField out of this thread, folks. I put up too many things here that he'll be too afraid to address.... sorrrrryyyyyyy!

1) Reagan tried to control spending too, but congress was uncooperative.
2) I believe that the total deficits that Reagan created in 8 years was about the same as Obama's debt projection in his second year alone. Add the two years together and Obama's debt after two years is 40% higher than Reagan's total through 8 years. No contest eh? And for what, gifts to the unions and a floundering economy that's still losing jobs? Reagan created jobs, Obama is destroying them.

The Europeans are creating "shell" jobs...jobs that are created because of legislative fiat, but are meaningless and are unsustainable. I worked there for a long time and have some perspective on that. The unemployment rate in one city was getting so high that they cut back hours for employed workers to the mid 30's hoping that businesses would hire more workers, it didn't work. Their competitive position is getting so weak that across the country their businesses (at a competitive disadvantage) are losing market share and things are getting increasingly frayed at the edges. The debt is growing at an alarming rate and fortess Euro is teetering. (Wall Street Journal Article last week). Their "official" unemployment rate is hidden so as not to alarm people. I'm sure we're headed that way too because our elightened leaders don't appear to be so elightened any more and the public is catching on to the big mistake they made in electing democrats.

Is that the best you got?

A free market is the best medicine.

 

[RightField]

Does anyone dispute that Carter's era of malaise, rising interest rates and myopic foreign policy was a disaster? Carter did create jobs at the begining from the previous administration, but then it all turned downhill quickly as interest rates continued to rise and inflation took its toll and job creation slowed....till Reagan rescued us.

Clinton added jobs in the begining of his term too. With the Republicans leading congress and controlling spending, Newt led him around by the nose...at least when Monica wasn't pulling on something else, we kept the job creation going. After Clinton managed to put into place a huge tax increase, the biggest in history, the economy began to flag again. Don't forget he emasculating the military too.

Bush's term started with the ebbing economy coming from the Clinton tax increases and then was hammered by 9/11. He put good policies in place, including tax reductions, that led to the economy turning around until the real estate bubble burst...but that was due to democrat policies (make loans to anyone who wants them whether they could pay them back or not in the name of "fair").

 

[Le Jacquelope]

1) Reagan tried to control spending too, but congress was uncooperative.

Excuses, excuses. The national debt came to a halt under Clinton, and then exploded again under Bush while he presided over a Republican-dominated Congress.

Let me repeat that slowly for you. Two words per line so you don't get overwhelmed...

The debt
exploded
under Bush
while he
presided over
a Republican
dominated
CONGRESS.

What's your excuse for that?

2) I believe that the total deficits that Reagan created in 8 years was about the same as Obama's debt projection in his second year alone. Add the two years together and Obama's debt after two years is 40% higher than Reagan's total through 8 years. No contest eh? And for what, gifts to the unions and a floundering economy that's still losing jobs? Reagan created jobs, Obama is destroying them.

Obama's not destroying any jobs. If he stepped back and let the market fix things we'd be at 25% U3 unemployment by now. Plus we would still be in debt. Tell ya why - a Republican President would have shut down unemployment insurance extensions a year ago and even fewer people would have any cash to spend. Then you'd have an even bigger problem than the debt. Plus all the debt, too.

There is absolutely no way possible, short of tariffing China and India, that John McCain or even Ron Paul, could create jobs in this environment. You cannot present to us any scenario that has Obama creating anything, even if he did exactly as you wish. It is totally impossible. You have never seen in human history any time where an economic crisis of this magnitude has ever produced a reverse in unemployment within two years. Your attempts to blame Obama are based on delusions and a total disconnect from reality.

The Europeans are creating "shell" jobs...jobs that are created because of legislative fiat, but are meaningless and are unsustainable.

Really now. Examples, please?

I worked there for a long time and have some perspective on that. The unemployment rate in one city was getting so high that they cut back hours for employed workers to the mid 30's hoping that businesses would hire more workers, it didn't work. Their competitive position is getting so weak that across the country their businesses (at a competitive disadvantage) are losing market share and things are getting increasingly frayed at the edges. The debt is growing at an alarming rate and fortess Euro is teetering. (Wall Street Journal Article last week). Their "official" unemployment rate is hidden so as not to alarm people. I'm sure we're headed that way too because our elightened leaders don't appear to be so elightened any more and the public is catching on to the big mistake they made in electing democrats.

Their unemployment rate isn't hidden. It's measured by the U6 standard, which you guys refused to even acknowledge until Obama came into office. FYI on U6... it also counts underemployment. So no, Europe's unemployment rate is actually more honest and in the open than America's U3 based measurement.

Is that the best you got?

I'm beating you with my C game, dude. WTF.

A free market is the best medicine.

If you're Jack Kervorkian.

By the way, if we go by your arguments, China has a better system than America. Guess what their economy is doing now. Guess which direction their unemployment rate is going.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

Does anyone dispute that Carter's era of malaise, rising interest rates and myopic foreign policy was a disaster? Carter did create jobs at the begining from the previous administration, but then it all turned downhill quickly as interest rates continued to rise and inflation took its toll and job creation slowed....till Reagan rescued us.

Your intellectual dishonesty knows no bounds.

You claim here that Carter's job increases came from the previous administration, but then you refuse to acknowledge that Obama inherited a major jobs downturn from the previous administration. Hmmmm. Yeah, oh and you declined to acknowledge the effect that the TWO ENERGY CRISES had on the US economy during Carter's administration - one whose lingering effects hampered him at the start, and one that got him in 1979. Oh, and there was also that oil surplus in the 1980s that helped Reagan - you left that part out.

Clinton added jobs in the begining of his term too. With the Republicans leading congress and controlling spending, Newt led him around by the nose...at least when Monica wasn't pulling on something else, we kept the job creation going.

Ehm, Newt Gingrich was cheating on his wife at the same time. Let's not talk about Newt, Monica and Billy boy in the same sentence, 'k? Lest I also remind you of all the Republican pedophiles that have been busted since then.

After Clinton managed to put into place a huge tax increase, the biggest in history, the economy began to flag again. Don't forget he emasculating the military too.

Eh, no it didn't. The Internet revolution, sparked in part from liberal Democrat funding efforts, came roaring into action, and was a huge creator of jobs.

Bush's term started with the ebbing economy coming from the Clinton tax increases and then was hammered by 9/11. He put good policies in place, including tax reductions, that led to the economy turning around until the real estate bubble burst...

Eh, no it did not. Job creation was the worst in decades under his administration. Well documented fact right there. Plus the national debt skyrocketed. Under a totally Republican-dominated Government.

Damn. You're good at making your side look really stupid.

 

[cebalrai]

I didn't write this, it was written by a freshman in college. However, it is plain english that speaks to the benefits of market-based reform as compared to the "central-planning" approach you and the current inhabitors of the White House advocate:

• Central-planning = decline
• Market-based freedom = growth and prosperity

Simple, clean, clear.

Rightfield, your problem is that you tend to think in absolutes. Everything is all-or-nothing, black-or-white with you. You seek to boil economics and most other issues down to some kind of false and distorted simplicity. Then you take your false simplicity and present it in such a fashion that nobody could ever disagree with it.

Reality doesn't work like that though, so the very foundations of your thinking are critically flawed.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

Rightfield, your problem is that you tend to think in absolutes. Everything is all-or-nothing, black-or-white with you. You seek to boil economics and most other issues down to some kind of false and distorted simplicity. Then you take your false simplicity and present it in such a fashion that nobody could ever disagree with it.

Reality doesn't work like that though, so the very foundations of your thinking are critically flawed.

Did I ever tell you the story of the man who tried to teach a pig how to sing?

 

[RightField]

Rightfield, your problem is that you tend to think in absolutes. Everything is all-or-nothing, black-or-white with you. You seek to boil economics and most other issues down to some kind of false and distorted simplicity. Then you take your false simplicity and present it in such a fashion that nobody could ever disagree with it.

Reality doesn't work like that though, so the very foundations of your thinking are critically flawed.

As opposed to what, the endless nuance that your side needs to try to explain why your policies aren't actually disasterous? An easy example is your convoluted claims that rises in the minimum wage don't actually destroy jobs. You have to go to great lengths to explain away how your policies aren't bad for the economy when my explanations of how your policies are very bad for us are simple and clear. Inversely, my explanations of how we help the economy are simple, concise and clear.

Let the people free and they will find a way to prosper. Put them under the heel of democrat philosopher-kings and their myriad rules and social engineering efforts and they will retract and not prosper. Simple and clear.

In my example of Mayberry RFD where once upon a time Andy Griffith and Don Knotts represented the law and the taxes were low, the local factory could produce its goods with only a 1% tax and their products were competitive on the world market. Now Mayberry has a large government force along with a police force of 40 and therefore there's a 40% tax on the factory's products and they aren't competitive in the world market and the factory is struggling and the owners have to consider whether the only alternative for them to survive is to move overseas.

Simple and clear.

 

[More_Malarky]

I blame NAFTA